What is libel on the Madeleine McCann board?

[faithlilly]

If you don't submit a Tax Return then you don't get a Tax Bill.  But it catches up with you eventually.

‘ Portugal operates a pay-as-you-earn income tax system. This means employees typically have their income tax contributions deducted automatically from their salary.’

https://www.expatica.com/pt/finance/taxes/portuguese-income-tax-filing-a-portuguese-tax-return-as-an-expat-105172/

Amaral was a public servant so he certainly would be an employee.

[Robittybob1]

‘ Portugal operates a pay-as-you-earn income tax system. This means employees typically have their income tax contributions deducted automatically from their salary.’

https://www.expatica.com/pt/finance/taxes/portuguese-income-tax-filing-a-portuguese-tax-return-as-an-expat-105172/

Amaral was a public servant so he certainly would be an employee.

He could have had to pay Capital Gains tax, tax on rental income, tax on interest earned, ... things like this. 

[faithlilly]

He could have had to pay Capital Gains tax, tax on rental income, tax on interest earned, ... things like this.

He could but we’d have to see evidence of that. Is there any evidence?

[Robittybob1]

He could but we’d have to see evidence of that. Is there any evidence?

Eleanor, can you answer this?

[Eleanor]

How do we know how much Amaral owed? I believe I heard about a court case with his brother, something about owing him half the money for a house, please correct me if I’m wrong....but the rest?

He sold a house to his brother which his brother then started to renovate.  He took his brother's money without handing over The Deeds and then sold it to someone else without returning his brother's money.  His brother then eventually took him to Court.  A case which his brother won, but was only awarded monthly payments of the return of his capital.

There were also other mortgages on two other houses, one of which was repossessed.  I think they lived in the other one.

Amaral's wife, Sofia Leal was a joint owner in these dealings and was ultimately held jointly responsible, although I am not sure of her culpability.  And then there was the Income Tax problem.  It all amounted to a very large sum of money.  Which is one of the reasons for why his assets from The Book were eventually frozen by The Court.  And nothing much to do with The McCanns at all.

I could tell you more but what would be the point.
 
For all I know Amaral could have inadvertently got himself into such horrendous debt.  I myself have watched such a horror story from within my own family.  Which is why I live in a hovel in France.  But at least it is My Hovel.

[Eleanor]

Eleanor, can you answer this?

This was the problem at the time.  How did he get away with it for so long?

Let's not give him a hard time.  He is PJ?

[G-Unit]

Amaral's reason for resigning was to cash in, since The PJ refused permission for him to publish why still being employed by that Institution.  And at which point his salary ceased.  So what did he think he was going to live on other than the proceeds of The Book?  You could try telling me that.

His Honour had already been seriously damaged by then and wasn't going to be repaired by The Book.

I wrote that Amarals reason for retiring was to have the freedom to express himself. To support my statement I provided a cite from his book.

You have written "Amaral's reason for resigning was to cash in". Do you have a cite supporting your statement?

[Eleanor]

I wrote that Amarals reason for retiring was to have the freedom to express himself. To support my statement I provided a cite from his book.

You have written "Amaral's reason for resigning was to cash in". Do you have a cite supporting your statement?

He needed the money for obvious reasons which I have already stated.  Will that do?

[G-Unit]

He needed the money for obvious reasons which I have already stated.  Will that do?

The reasons which you think justify your statement. That means you're giving your opinion, not stating a fact.

[Eleanor]

The reasons which you think justify your statement. That means you're giving your opinion, not stating a fact.

I see.  Being up to one's eyeballs in debt is not a good enough reason to write a money spinning book Libelling The McCanns?

I could agree with you on that.

Fortunately, I don't care of what you think.  Amaral was a horror story even before Madeleine was born.

[Eleanor]

I wrote that Amarals reason for retiring was to have the freedom to express himself. To support my statement I provided a cite from his book.

You have written "Amaral's reason for resigning was to cash in". Do you have a cite supporting your statement?

Do you seriously think that a Cite from his Book is acceptable?  Good Heavens.

[Robittybob1]

He needed the money for obvious reasons which I have already stated.  Will that do?

Let's see what this means from the perspective of libel.

1.  Eleanor is talking about a public figure - Goncalo Amaral.
2.  Eleanor is saying he wrote the book because he needed money.

You could ask is this statement a true or false statement, but when you consider that it makes little to no difference to GA's reputation and therefore there is no chance of GA suing Eleanor for damages.

Should it then be judged as opinion stated as fact or not?  That is a good question and I see the issue as to what sort of fact is being said. 
Is it a personal fact or non-fact (true or false statement about a person)
Is it a non-personal fact (the fact can be backed by a cite.)
Is it an opinion about a non-personal fact.  (must be stated in a way it is obvious to be opinion, "I  think" "I believe" or IMO.)

Is this the start of a way of telling whether a statement is libel or not?

[carlymichelle]

here in australia ex police have written books about cases even unsolved   caases  im sure  they have in the  uk  too  so why is it a  crime  that   GA  did?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Was your witness present "at the time" as I specified; i.e. 10pm? As I understand the evidence only the McCann, Payne and Oldfied couples were present, along with Russell O'Brien.

You posted opinion as fact when you said Amaral's motive in resigning was to cash in on the disappearance of Madeleine McCann by publishing a book about it. You seem unable to grasp that fact, which is strange when you are so keen to highlight alleged breaches of that forum rule by others.

Was the open window corroborated by a witness - you said not, the fact is it was.  Your post was disingenuous at the very least.  Amaral clearly resigned to be allowed to speak freely, and the way he chose to do that was by writing a book which he intended to sell.  Even if it only sold one copy that is “cashing in” on the case.  But please explain why saying this is libel when we’ve established it’s ok to make unevidenced claims about other individuals?  Unless you can explain this dichotomy you’ve really not got a leg to stand on wrt this issue IMO.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I wrote that Amarals reason for retiring was to have the freedom to express himself. To support my statement I provided a cite from his book.

You have written "Amaral's reason for resigning was to cash in". Do you have a cite supporting your statement?

Madeleine was abducted.  To support my statement of fact I give you the entire book “Madeleine” by Kate McCann, will that do?